← Back to context

Comment by generalizations

6 months ago

Marshmallow test assumes the payoff exists and is worth it. Does it? Is it? IDK and I don't want to waste time finding out. I'm far more interested in information-dense sources that let me find out if I want to know what it's offering. That's why journal articles have abstracts.

9 comments

generalizations

Reply
JumpCrisscross  6 months ago

> Does it? Is it? IDK and I don't want to waste time finding out

This is what goes through the toddlers’ heads too! Gauging credibility is inextricably entangled with patience and Kahmeman’s System 2 thinking [1][2].

If this were a random article, sure, you shouldn’t trust. But it’s not. It’s on HN’s front page.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730121/

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

  • generalizations  6 months ago

    Given how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet, and your apparent risk-reward ratio, I wonder if you're the one failing the test. And you haven't really justified your original claim that GP failed the marshmallow test.

    • JumpCrisscross  6 months ago

      > how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet

      Most of the HN front page aren’t marshmallows. If you believe they are, it’s irrational to be here, let alone waste time commenting about it.

      2 replies →

    • prepend  6 months ago

      I think GP just wants you to be smart enough to commend them for knowing of the marshmallow test but not smart enough to know if the reference is applicable.

  • prepend  6 months ago

    Toddlers are told they will get two marshmallows if they wait.

    This is like “you can have a headache now and, if you wait, might get something later, perhaps a punch in the face, perhaps a slice of pie, perhaps nothing.”